Both are common enough to weaken whatever point it is you’re trying to make.
Okay, and? It still is non-procreative rape. Discounting it makes no sense.
Same-sex rape won’t be netting any rape babies either.
Paging Cesario…paging Cesario.
Claiming that each and every rapee needs to be fertile is just as ludicrous as claiming that marriage is only about bearing children. Evolution is not always perfect, so if it is indeed an evolutionary mechanism it does not need to be perfect in order to work. In fact, that is probably one reason why you see so little of it, because it is pretty ineffectual as a primary source of reproduction.
Although Hazelwood was an FBI agent and not a social scientist, his rapist typology was based on Groth’s work. (I gave his name incorrectly as Nicholas Groth above, it should be A. Nicholas Groth.) I couldn’t turn up much biographical information about Groth and I suspect he’s dead by now, but he was a real psychologist with a Ph.D, specialized in sex crimes, served as Director of the Connecticut Department of Corrections Sex Offender Program, and published a number of research articles on the subject of rape in peer-reviewed journals in the '70s and '80s.
I haven’t read any of these articles, nor have I read his book, so I can’t speak to how well-supported or well-argued Groth’s claims about rape were. It’s also possible to produce a well-supported and well-argued piece of writing that isn’t actually correct. But given his credentials, I think even professional women with formal training in the social sciences might reasonably have believed that Groth was in a position to know what he was talking about.
But Groth never said that rape wasn’t about sex[1], and that’s what I was labeling as crankery. In his 1979 book, he refers to rape as a pseudosexual act on page 2, as well as in his table of contents.
A reasonable person could believe on the basis of Groth’s work that rapists are motivated more by power than by lust, relatively speaking. But that’s very different from the catch phrase on rape having nothing to do with sex.
I can’t comment either on the motivations of the rapist, but here’s Groth’s POV:
There’s much there that 1970s feminists would appreciate: they didn’t need to wander into categorical and nutty territory. Such attitudes discourage further research and understanding, particularly along the sort of evolutionary lines vilified during the 1970s.
[1]Ok, now I’ve over-reached. I just learned of Groth today and I’ve basically just pasted all that I’ve read from the guy. But I can say that the style at least of Groth and Hazelwood lacks the inanity of certain 1970s formulations. I see no evidence that they indulged in quackery, though they may or may not have been on the right track.
This is the proper rebuttal to claims along the lines of those recently made by you with a face. Rape is one route by which an organism might spread its genes. There are, however, other routes, which are preferable for most male humans. But some men don’t have the ability or willingness to go those routes and prefer to rape.
The points about men raping men and men and men raping children don’t work in the way people think they do. The mystery, in evolutionary terms, is non-heterosexual sexual orientation itself. While I cannot explain non-heterosexual sexual orientations in evolutionary terms, if we had an explanation of how they came about, the existence of child rape or male-to-male rape would disappear. These rapists would be behaving in a manner that is evolutionarily adaptive for heterosexuals, adjusted for their sexual orientation.
Ok, but surely pioneers in women’s rights should receive some credit for women’s advancement, right?
Well, the effects of their efforts may be overblown. The entry of women into the labor force was a worldwide phenomenon and in many countries it occurred without as much angst, hand wringing and accusations of oppression. Furthermore, big gains in the female labor force participation rate occurred during the culturally conservative 1980s. If we believe Faludi, that was the era of Backlash, when society really put the hammer down on feminism. And culturally speaking, she may have had a point.
But substantively, the 1980s were a period of revolutionary women’s advancement. For the first time, average college aged women could shape their education with the by then reasonable assumption that their efforts would be rewarded in the workforce.
I’m cribbing this from Claudia Goldin (and simplifying it!). She actually dates the beginning of that era to 1970s-- but to her the key development was the invention of the Pill, not a general raising of women’s consciousness.
That’s sharing power. But there’s so such thing as true balance, someone always come out on top.
Although I’m beginning to think you live in a fantasy world where everybody in the world does missionary in the dark.
And you know what? Murder is another means of controlling population growth. And stealing is a way of gathering resources in times of scarcity. And deception is a protective mechanism used for self-preservation.
Again, what does any of thing bring to the discussion? No one has denied that rape doesn’t cause pregnancy. So it’s moot to argue that rape isn’t a reproductive strategy. As it involves sex and sex can lead to conception, this is obvious on its face.
When the alpha dog attacks lower status males in the pack to ensure that his genes are those that are transmitted to next generation, that is evolutionary psychology at work. But dominance, power, and male aggression-based hierarchy are forces intrinsically wrapped up this.
You can’t simply portray animal behavior in one dimension in order to portray human behavior as one dimensional.
That is miles off. Sex is a shared experience and if done properly there are no winners and losers. It is an act in which both people do what they can do satisfy their partner. If they both concentrate on that, power is not there at all. I feel sad yours is unbalanced. It should not be. Winners, losers, power, those are terms that do not belong in sex.Unless you are into S&M. Then there are a whole new set of definitions.
Wow, please give me your simultaneous orgasm tips. That’s why I always start with cunnilingus, talk about having power over someone’s orgasm. 
But why is S&M under a completely different set of definitions? Does it bother you so much that the waters are muddied somewhat with regards to sexual practices involving domination, pretend rape etc?
I don’t think S&M has to be totally different. I think there can be power in sex that makes it sexy without it automatically becoming BDSM. Not that there’s anything wrong with BDSM. But for example, you can tell your partner not to come until you say so–power, but no “winners or losers.” As long as everyone’s okay.
Right, you can also have consensual relationships (especially in the context of marriage) where the male partner especially might be all ‘take’. Once they’ve climaxed that’s it, off to sleep. That’s a power thing, right? Men can get it all sorted in a matter of seconds if they’re particularly bad.
Well, are we going to start classifying that as rape? I mean, it’s a bit of a dick move (forgive the pun), it’s accepted as being ‘wrong’, but it’s consensual. Why anybody would want to stay in a relationship like that I don’t know. But I guess it’s things like that that just make this whole power being particular to rape thing inaccurate, to me at least.
I hear people saying “sex always involves power” and they might as well be saying “sex always involves shame”. Or even “sex always involves black olives”.
While I will quickly ratify the notion that sex is an area of life that can involve power (because it tends to involve vulnerability), I don’t see that it’s some kind of intrinsic inevitable presence. The notion that it always does seems very old-fashioned (like the assumption that shame would be omnipresent in sex) or even out of left field (like the olives).
The fact that rape is a reproductive strategy renders all of the talk about “power” irrelevant. There is a perfectly respectable explanation for rape offered to us by evolutionary psychology. We don’t need feminist nonsense about male control or power in there. Rapists do not rape women to prove that women are the inferior sex. That’s the point.
Power-seeking behavior is not equivalent to trying to “prove that women are the inferior sex”. That’s you misinterpreting what psychologists have theorized about rape in order to have an easy target to knock down. A strawman in other words.
The belief that rape is about misogyny is not obscure among feminists, though!
As for rape as power-seeking behaviour: the idea is obscure, given that rapists do not get power from rape. Rape is considered evil in all cultures. Rapists risk social rejection and prison sentences for it. Rapists do not brag about committing rape, nor could they, because nobody thinks it is something to brag about. And nobody thinks that committing rape is hard or challenging or that it shows that you’re powerful.
So the idea that rapists are motivated to commit rape for the experience of power seems just a little off, to me.
You might say that they get high from the experience of having so much power over their victims. But let’s remember that nobody thinks having physical dominance over a woman is a sign of power. Being able to physically dominate men is a sign of power. Men who beat their wives aren’t considered tough, they’re just considered abusive.
Well, there’s a good bit of truth to that belief, but it has nothing to do with the “rape is about power” and all to do with looking at where in the world rape occurs and how it’s persecuted. In countries that value women’s rights (like the US and other industrialized nations) rapes is treated seriously for the most part and relative to other crimes, is not rampant. In places like Saudi Arabia where women can’t even legally drive, when a rape occurs, guess who often gets punished for it? The victim. In many African nations, rape statistics are hard to come by because it’s barely treated like a crime, and yet its happening all the time.
So is it really a stretch to say that rape goes hand in hand with misogyny. I think it’s more of a stretch to argue the two things are unrelated? If women are barely viewed as human, there are fewer moral prohibitions against raping them and the social stigma is lower.
Are you really in a position to say what motivates a rapist? How many rapists have you interviewed, examined, and/or profiled? How many rape investigations have you conducted? I mean, I understand that everyone is free to their opinions, but unless you have some real expertise in this area, why should your assertions about what rape is and isn’t be viewed as more credible than those of people who have studied this crime extensively?
Sex itself is a reproductive strategy, but I am totally confident of my grounds in saying that generally speaking people’s motivation for participating in sex is not that they have an overwhelming desire to reproduce.
Rapists rape women not to prove that women are the inferior sex but to prove that they are men, which depends on demonstrating that they are in the TOP slot, OVER women, can sexually DOMINATE women. This need to ‘prove’ this may exist on any of several possible levels, involving feelings of personal direct erotic satisfaction (they get OFF on coerced sex), or involving more pragmatic satisfaction of erotic needs (they want SEX and their personal sense of themselves as a man is validated by taking what they want) or retaliation in general (I’ll show those cunts in general that I am a man and I take what I want) or retaliation up close and personal (OK now who’s not so uppity, huh, bitch?) or retaliation by proxy (OK Mike you bastard I’m having your wife teach you to shaft me in front of the board of directors) and so on and so on… but to an overwhelming degree it involves the rapist’s relationship to a sense of self that, in turn, usually involves power and moreover power as a male.
You need to actually read some feminist theory literature. And quit crossing your legs like some feminist is coming after your parts with sharp pruning tools or something, yeesh.
All of your statements here are correct in my opinion, but the belief that rape is a method of enforcing dominance still has its place in feminist theory. Are you familiar with Susan Brownmiller’s line “rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear”?
My view isn’t more “credible” than the theirs because I’m not an expert on rape. But the view that I take is supported by some psychologists.